Comments on: On God's Goodness http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:53:33 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Harvard http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27911 Harvard Tue, 23 Oct 2007 05:51:31 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27911 Hello Terrence ! - ----You said, "Take a look at the natural world around you, something we CAN see and CAN evaluate, and ask, "Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving, all-good deity?"---- - I'm not sure what your point is. I look around at the people and animals and see murder, mayhem, predation, and gruesome death. I look at nature and see hurricanes and tornadoes killing innocent people, destroying their homes, causing more mayhem. I look at germs and viruses to see their deadly effect on humans. Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving deity? I can see no other answer but NO. Do you agree?- - Hello Terrence !
-
----You said, "Take a look at the natural world around you, something we CAN see and CAN evaluate, and ask, "Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving, all-good deity?"----
-
I'm not sure what your point is.
I look around at the people and animals and see murder, mayhem, predation, and gruesome death.
I look at nature and see hurricanes and tornadoes killing innocent people, destroying their homes, causing more mayhem.
I look at germs and viruses to see their deadly effect on humans.
Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving deity?
I can see no other answer but NO.
Do you agree?-
-

]]> By: timtam http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27882 timtam Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:22:38 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27882 It's possible that they aren't making an ethical evaulation on God at all! The actual thought process goes something like (logical thinking not required): "God is infinitely above me, so I cannot judge him." "God tells the truth because He says His word is true!" "God says He is good." "Therefore, God is good!" See, there can be no moral judgement on God's "good-ness". All you need is gullibi... blind belie... faith, I meant faith. It's possible that they aren't making an ethical evaulation on God at all!

The actual thought process goes something like (logical thinking not required):
"God is infinitely above me, so I cannot judge him."
"God tells the truth because He says His word is true!"
"God says He is good."
"Therefore, God is good!"

See, there can be no moral judgement on God's "good-ness". All you need is gullibi... blind belie... faith, I meant faith.

]]> By: Steve http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27802 Steve Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:35:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27802 I think the whole "God is good" thing was more consistent before the universalization of the Abrahamic religions. God did horrific things, this is true, but it was (most of the time) beneficial to the Israelites. Thus, his actions were "good" because they benefited the authors of the Bible. When his actions hurt the Israelites, it was a deserved punishment for "wrongdoing" and, thus, still "good." Now that religions try to pawn off their God as loving all people, it is, as you so eloquently stated, simply absurd. Great post, as always! I think the whole "God is good" thing was more consistent before the universalization of the Abrahamic religions. God did horrific things, this is true, but it was (most of the time) beneficial to the Israelites. Thus, his actions were "good" because they benefited the authors of the Bible. When his actions hurt the Israelites, it was a deserved punishment for "wrongdoing" and, thus, still "good."

Now that religions try to pawn off their God as loving all people, it is, as you so eloquently stated, simply absurd.

Great post, as always!

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27801 Thumpalumpacus Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:04:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27801 That would be "two" Mormons, not "to". Hmph. That would be "two" Mormons, not "to". Hmph.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27800 Thumpalumpacus Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:03:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27800 "This is totally unrelated, but I was thinking about it last night. How does religion explain the vast numbers of different religions in the world?" -- Mrnaglfar Mr. N -- Thanks for one helluva a question. When to Mormon missionaries stopped in last night to visit my neighbor [who was absent], I took the moment to ask them this question. The question, the answers it elicited and the respectful nature of our exchange led to about an hour-long conersation which was educational to me, for I've been little exposed to Mormonism. Thanks much for the seed to a useful harvest. "This is totally unrelated, but I was thinking about it last night. How does religion explain the vast numbers of different religions in the world?" -- Mrnaglfar

Mr. N --

Thanks for one helluva a question. When to Mormon missionaries stopped in last night to visit my neighbor [who was absent], I took the moment to ask them this question. The question, the answers it elicited and the respectful nature of our exchange led to about an hour-long conersation which was educational to me, for I've been little exposed to Mormonism. Thanks much for the seed to a useful harvest.

]]> By: Tom Freeman http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27795 Tom Freeman Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:06:36 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27795 Given Will E's comment, I'm reminded of a marvellous semi-spoof dialogue by <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/god-of-eth.html" rel="nofollow">Stephen Law</a>, set on a world with a somewhat different conception of god: <i>BOOBLEFRIP: It’s obvious our creator is very clearly evil! Take a look around you! Witness the horrendous suffering he inflicts upon us. The floods. The ethquakes. Cancer. The vile, rotting stench of God’s creation is overwhelming! GIZIMOTH: Yes, our creator may do some evil. But it’s not clear he’s all-evil, is it? It’s certainly not obvious that his wickedness is infinite, that his malice and cruelty know no bounds. You’re deliberately ignoring a famous argument against the existence of God – the problem of good.</i> Given Will E's comment, I'm reminded of a marvellous semi-spoof dialogue by Stephen Law, set on a world with a somewhat different conception of god:

BOOBLEFRIP: It’s obvious our creator is very clearly evil! Take a look around you! Witness the horrendous suffering he inflicts upon us. The floods. The ethquakes. Cancer. The vile, rotting stench of God’s creation is overwhelming!

GIZIMOTH: Yes, our creator may do some evil. But it’s not clear he’s all-evil, is it? It’s certainly not obvious that his wickedness is infinite, that his malice and cruelty know no bounds. You’re deliberately ignoring a famous argument against the existence of God – the problem of good.

]]> By: Will E. http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27794 Will E. Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:31:14 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27794 Why should God be "good"? Why could he not be "evil," since so much of what we see in the natural world is indeed cruel and painful? The fact that we assume God to be good implies to me that yes, we have an innate & evolved understanding and appreciation of "good" without any recourse to the supernatural, or some kind of "top-down" morality. God has not taught humans to be good; it is the other way 'round. Why should God be "good"? Why could he not be "evil," since so much of what we see in the natural world is indeed cruel and painful? The fact that we assume God to be good implies to me that yes, we have an innate & evolved understanding and appreciation of "good" without any recourse to the supernatural, or some kind of "top-down" morality. God has not taught humans to be good; it is the other way 'round.

]]> By: terrence http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27793 terrence Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:08:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27793 You can take two approaches. One, start with the premise of an all-powerful, all-loving deity. Then, disregarding all the bad stuff humans do via their "free will," just take a look at the workings of the natural world of which you are a part (look up E.T. Babinski's excellent "Why We Believe in a Designer"). Now, tie yourselves all up in knots with one theodicy after another that never satisfies. Or, you can "start at the other end." Take a look at the natural world around you, something we CAN see and CAN evaluate, and ask, "Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving, all-good deity?" Problem of evil solved? You can take two approaches. One, start with the premise of an all-powerful, all-loving deity. Then, disregarding all the bad stuff humans do via their "free will," just take a look at the workings of the natural world of which you are a part (look up E.T. Babinski's excellent "Why We Believe in a Designer"). Now, tie yourselves all up in knots with one theodicy after another that never satisfies.

Or, you can "start at the other end." Take a look at the natural world around you, something we CAN see and CAN evaluate, and ask, "Does this state of affairs imply an all-loving, all-good deity?"

Problem of evil solved?

]]> By: TEP http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27791 TEP Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:00:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27791 The way that many Christians can defend the antics of Yahweh makes me wonder how they can criticise people like Saddam Hussein and still keep a straight face. How can they possibly know that Saddam was nasty? They don't know what was going on in his head - how do they know that Saddam's apparrently evil acts weren't simply part of some grand plan by Saddam to bring about a greater good? Saddam's actions might seem evil to us, but his motives are beyond our comprehension, and who are we to question the morality of what he did? The way that many Christians can defend the antics of Yahweh makes me wonder how they can criticise people like Saddam Hussein and still keep a straight face. How can they possibly know that Saddam was nasty? They don't know what was going on in his head - how do they know that Saddam's apparrently evil acts weren't simply part of some grand plan by Saddam to bring about a greater good? Saddam's actions might seem evil to us, but his motives are beyond our comprehension, and who are we to question the morality of what he did?

]]> By: Tommykey http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27790 Tommykey Thu, 18 Oct 2007 04:03:48 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27790 I have been reading Rodney Stark's latest book Discovering God, and the line of argument he uses is something called "Divine Accomodation", which means that "God reveals himself to humans according to their capacity to understand." So, Stark asserts, revelations received by people thousands of years ago seem absurd to us today, but they were not absurd to people who received them at the time. This "baby talk" as he calls it, is analogous to teaching a 5 year old to memorize numbers, then teaching him addition, subtraction and so on instead of teaching him calculus right away. My response to that is that a god powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe should have had no problem creating humans with the capacity to understand advanced concepts in the first generation. I have been reading Rodney Stark's latest book Discovering God, and the line of argument he uses is something called "Divine Accomodation", which means that "God reveals himself to humans according to their capacity to understand." So, Stark asserts, revelations received by people thousands of years ago seem absurd to us today, but they were not absurd to people who received them at the time. This "baby talk" as he calls it, is analogous to teaching a 5 year old to memorize numbers, then teaching him addition, subtraction and so on instead of teaching him calculus right away. My response to that is that a god powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe should have had no problem creating humans with the capacity to understand advanced concepts in the first generation.

]]> By: Mac http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27786 Mac Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:42:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27786 Something should be remembered as well, is that most apologists take the view that God "owns" us. ie He created us and can hence set any arbitrary standard he likes and we are indebted to call it "good". I think it is assumed he has our best interests at heart - but ultimately even if that may not be the case, since they believe he created us he's already shown to care for us. This then becomes something quite distinct from comparing God to an independent standard as "good" is simply defined as obeying God, evil is turning against him. God is good - is a relatively meaningless statement more designed to show fealty in this case. Personally I agree with most of the arguments laid out by Ebon and others - our standards of moral right are not based on biblical principles (even the apologist will not claim the Old Testament events were good - instead they defend them via other means), so the question becomes "where did our morals come from?" Something should be remembered as well, is that most apologists take the view that God "owns" us. ie He created us and can hence set any arbitrary standard he likes and we are indebted to call it "good". I think it is assumed he has our best interests at heart - but ultimately even if that may not be the case, since they believe he created us he's already shown to care for us.
This then becomes something quite distinct from comparing God to an independent standard as "good" is simply defined as obeying God, evil is turning against him. God is good - is a relatively meaningless statement more designed to show fealty in this case.

Personally I agree with most of the arguments laid out by Ebon and others - our standards of moral right are not based on biblical principles (even the apologist will not claim the Old Testament events were good - instead they defend them via other means), so the question becomes "where did our morals come from?"

]]> By: Intergalactic Hussy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27785 Intergalactic Hussy Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:48:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/10/on-gods-goodness.html#comment-27785 Excellent post! I never got that. I never understood why so many thank their god for good but never say "F U" for the bad. You bring up an excellent point that I never thought of in that way. "if God is not within our ability to judge, then we have no right to say either that he is good or that he is evil. After all, we're not in a position to judge!" So, if we can never understand god or god's motives and are in no place to judge (as theists always say) then how could god be anything to us? Then god is not great, after all! "God" just is: amoral, asexual, a-everything... Hmmm, does that make god an atheist? Hah! Excellent post! I never got that. I never understood why so many thank their god for good but never say "F U" for the bad. You bring up an excellent point that I never thought of in that way.

"if God is not within our ability to judge, then we have no right to say either that he is good or that he is evil. After all, we're not in a position to judge!"

So, if we can never understand god or god's motives and are in no place to judge (as theists always say) then how could god be anything to us? Then god is not great, after all! "God" just is: amoral, asexual, a-everything... Hmmm, does that make god an atheist? Hah!

]]>